Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless. If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I think Obama is forcing a House vote on a Syrian strike because 1) it's a lose-lose for anyone running for House in 2014 so it's like a big middle finger to Congress and the House in particular, 2) he doesn't really want to invade Syria and needs a way to back out, and 3) he doesn't want to be impeached.

Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

bdub77:Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

I doubt it would even be as much as a no-fly. We're talking cruise missiles aimed at sites (relatively easy), nobody is even talking about the possibility of aiming at people (relatively hard) or trying to influence the outcome of this thing to our liking (extremely hard) beyond keeping the use of WMDs off the table.

People are getting their panties wadded because they're afraid this is going to be Iraq War 2: Chemical Boogaloo even though it's virtually nothing like that situation. Syria has been known to have chems for a long time, has publicly stated as much, has almost certainly used them and is in an unstable situation that could lead to their disbursement to people who are very keen on duck-boating one into an American harbor someday. Pretty much as opposite as you can get from Iraq circa 2003.

But, of course, 200,000,000 complete and utter imbeciles didn't bother to think about anything for more than 911 seconds a decade ago and dumbly cheered George Bush the Dumber into a quagmire while abandoning troops on the real battlefield in Afghanistan turning the entire U.S. involvement in the region into a complete and utter disaster, so now we have to swing completely in the opposite direction because somehow undergoing an extreme reversal on interventionism will make up for that clusterfark.../ tl;dr: Americans are dumb as dirt and fickle as hell

But you have a point. Why do you think we're in this state of things? It's because we have a 24-hour news cycle now. This isn't the 1970s when we had TV news at noon and 6 o'clock, and that's all. Now news is entertainment, and wars are big business. They're also very distracting. They keep the proles engaged; Watching TV (and the ads that go with that), buying things (gotta stock up in case we're attacked!), talking about war (instead of what's really going on), cursing the politician of the hour (instead of recognizing the true powers behind the thrones), and generally being busy little people who don't challenge the real masters of this world and stay right where they want us.

It's all about keeping folks busy and entertained, and yes, watching people on the other side of the world die is entertainment for news junkies and armchair politicians. It's high entertainment that gets both sides riled up and takes all their attention.

The whole system is a show. Presidents don't make decisions; They announce decisions that have been made for them by people who are a hell of a lot more powerful and secretive than our politicians are. Washington DC is just another version of Hollywood. It's drama/scandal/power-monger theater for the masses. You're no better off with one party than another, since they're all just as powerless as the rest of us when it comes to what really happens in the world. It's just that they figured out how to play their role, take the money, and enjoy the good life in exchange for their job of distracting the rest of us.

Infernalist:Do you see it yet? How CWs make killing so much easier and 'that' is why we have to retaliate and keep it from happening again? Do you see why they're up there with Nuclear Bombs and Biological weapons? Do you see it now?

We're not the only country in the world with an interest in stopping the use of CWs. Stop pretending like somehow the US should be the caped crusader that has to do this, because we're not. We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.

Infernalist:Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Used by whom?

Assad gains nothing by dropping sarin gas on civilians in his own country. Doing so earns the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who all think it's okay) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers. It makes no logical sense for him to do such a thing.

Al Qaeda insurgents, on the other hand, have everything to gain by directing the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers. It makes rational sense for them to use any seized chemical weapons on civilians and point the blame at Assad.

Yes, we know chemical weapons were used on civilians and this is a Very Bad Thing. But until we know for certain what we're getting ourselves into, we need to stay out of it. I'm okay with sanctions and sending tersely worded letters from the UN, but that's it until we have definitive proof of who did this.

These guys know the US military, for all its bluff and bluster is really incapable of doing much after the enemy goes tits up. Its why we couldnt stabilize Iraq until we basically paid both sides off, its why Afghanistan is worse now than at any other point and why ever 'war' we've been in since Korea has either been extremely limited so that win conditions would be met regardless of what happened or simply made things worse.

We go into Syria and then what? Organized resistance collapses in a week, we pat our selves on the back and toss up the Mission Accomplished sign and then watch as a decade of guerrilla warfare erodes are stature and prestige even more before we call it quitsies?

Our military, like everyone elses is designed to fight itself. Its why we've fought nothing but tinpot 3rd world dictators since 1945 yet are boys are equipped and trained as if our biggest threat was bizarro USA. All these F22's super carriers SSBN's Abrams tanks and satellite directed weaponry and we still cant figure out how to fight a group of determined assholes with basic infantry skills and home turf advantage. The only winning move is not to play.

Infernalist:durbnpoisn: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this. Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof". Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack? "We told you not to gas you people, and you did. We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down. And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing. That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

No. I really don't. Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell. And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

Then I'll explain it to you. These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons. Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear. Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can't rid the site of the ...

That is some right fine imagination you got there, boy.You sound like exactly like what we have come to expect from years of government training.

you have pee hands:bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it. Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

Assad is likely a mass murdering war criminal but I don't think he is engaging in genocide. He seems to be killing anyone who disagree with him not targeting people of a specific race, religion or nationality.

I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Interesting bit: when I worked in DoD, I had a colleague (a native Chinese speaker) who said that the Chinese documents indicated that in Korea, they assumed we were tied to the roads because we were mechanized, and trucks were too valuable to us to leave behind in a retreat. They thought that they'd be able to encircle the entirety of UN forces, including the US, by taking the faster overland routes. They were surprised that we were willing to flee overland and abandon such rare equipment.

Apparently, they didn't appreciate just how disposable we viewed our mechanized assets to be.

Most countries have made that mistake against the US. German POWs knew Germany was screwed when they got to Cleveland, and realized fighting both Japan and Germany hadn't affected the American home front at all.

Interesting bit: when I worked in DoD, I had a colleague (a native Chinese speaker) who said that the Chinese documents indicated that in Korea, they assumed we were tied to the roads because we were mechanized, and trucks were too valuable to us to leave behind in a retreat. They thought that they'd be able to encircle the entirety of UN forces, including the US, by taking the faster overland routes. They were surprised that we were willing to flee overland and abandon such rare equipment.

Apparently, they didn't appreciate just how disposable we viewed our mechanized assets to be.

Infernalist:Or do you honestly think that neither nation would step up and take our place if for some inexplicable reason we decided to stop being in charge?

Yeah, because the rest of the world is just sitting on the fence waffling between following the US or Russia/China.

You know who would follow Russia/China? The same shiathole countries that have always followed Russia/China. The US acting as the world police isn't going to change that.

Hell, the world doesn't follow us NOW as they are so quick to point out day after day, so I'm not sure what going alone and bombing Syria is going to do for us in an effort to win hearts and minds over the likes of China and Russia. The US has been told time and time again that we aren't the world's leader. So maybe we should stop acting like we have some big crown to lose here.

I don't think nonexistent weapons can actually do anything in the real world.

I guess those Kurds all dropped dead on their own volition then. If chemical weapons are WMDs now then they were WMDs then. You farking partisan hypocrites are hilarious. Every one of you would be shiatting yourselves if a Republican was talking about attacking another country.

foxyshadis:Wouldn't it be possible to have some bombing runs across all of the known chemical weapon missile depots and command outposts, while also "accidentally" hitting as many al qaeda locations as possible? Both sides suck at this point, the original laudable leaders of the Syrian revolution are all dead now, and the civilians on the ground will be the ultimate losers.

Meh, I expect Iraq to enter the war when both sides are weakened enough. It's Al Qaeda in Iraq that's largely backing the revolution now anyway.

/Sick and tired of seeing family and acquaintances posting stupid conspiracy theories about Syria nonstop for weeks now.

You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.

bdub77:I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I think Obama is forcing a House vote on a Syrian strike because 1) it's a lose-lose for anyone running for House in 2014 so it's like a big middle finger to Congress and the House in particular, 2) he doesn't really want to invade Syria and needs a way to back out, and 3) he doesn't want to be impeached.

Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

1) agreed2) He wouldn't have to had he not painted himself into a corner with his STUPID 'red-line' comment on chemical warfare last year. Now he HAS to either do something, or look like a chump. Consulting congress and having them say no is his ONLY out. Meanwhile, this is the same guy who has circumvented congress in order to get his way more than once in the past. So why start now? It's not like he NEEDS congressional approval to pull the trigger (as it were). He's the commander in chief. When/If he says go, they go.3) Agreed. Why? Because that would hurt his fragile ego even more than doing nothing in Syria. Look. People can apologize for him all they want, but he really stuck his foot in his mouth last year. And now he's been called on it. So his only hope is that he doesn't get congressional approval and spins faster than ever in an attempt to make people believe that actually matters to him AFTER he's done end-runs around it in the past. So yeah. He's between the rock and a hard place he put HIMSELF in. My prediction? He's too much of a megalomaniac to do nothing even if congress won't go for it. He'll do 'something' with or without approval. What do I THINK he should do? I think he should swallow his pride for once and do nothing. But he won't.

dumbobruni:Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing. And yes, they should be removed from play. But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?! Why not the UN? Why not Israel, since they are right there? Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?

the_foo:Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

Infernalist:Kit Fister: Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.

They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

If they want to do it, more power to them. it's not our job.

I'm sure the world will be a much better place if the Russians were the ones leading the world. Or maybe the Chinese.

Or do you honestly think that neither nation would step up and take our place if for some inexplicable reason we decided to stop being in charge?

Again, it's not our job. And, we're *totally* leading the world right now, in obesity and that's about it.

Infernalist:It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.

Infernalist:It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.

They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?

Infernalist:durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this. Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof". Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack? "We told you not to gas you people, and you did. We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down. And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing. That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

People are dead? Is that the significance, because if that's what you're going with what about the first approx 100,000 deaths? Does how they died matter to the dead? Why didn't we intervene then? Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

netcentric:Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money. Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt. Maybe China will lend us more money. Borrowed debt is always good.

That's pretty close. Once the shooting starts, and the 'limited strikes' start expanding, this war will be used to justify increasing the debt ceiling and to silence dissent on obamacare (not to mention silencing inquiries into the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, etc,).

durbnpoisn:Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this. Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof". Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack? "We told you not to gas you people, and you did. We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down. And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing. That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Shadowe:I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Subtle_Canary:psht, warcrime. How many US politicians went to jail for Operation Ranch Hand? Yeah i thought so.

Nobody really gives a shiat if you use WMD's.

Ah. I think we are having different conversations here. I was answering the question of why chemical weapons are worse then conventional arms and almost universally reviled, even in warfare.

You seem to be arguing some vague point that because not all standards are universally adhered to, then no standards mean anything. Or something about because the US is not without sin, no one can cast any judgment on any country for anything they do. Or something. I don't know.

Anywho. We aren't actually having a discussion, you are just posting commentary with my post as a trigger.

PsiChick:vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job. Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing? Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

ciberido:AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year. And no. Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act. His ego will allow nothing less. Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it? You mark my words. Even without approval he's gonna do something. I mean? What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances? Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim. Now THAT would be brilliant. :-)

Yes, he rammed healthcare down your throat. Now suck it! Suck on the misery of being able to afford medical treatment! Isn't it humiliating?

"Now suck it!"

And there we have another well informed ad-hom attack from a typical Farker who wants something for nothing, believes it's actually possible, and projects his miserable life onto others. Expertly done!

Thunderpipes:I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell: Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences. He painted himself into a corner right there. Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens. But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress. The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved. Meanwhile? He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria. In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this. Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences. This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all. But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.

Subtle_Canary:When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

Thunderpipes:I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

The differences?

Iraq was a totally contained entity. He was a secular strong man running a country that basically kept fundamental nutty islamism in check. With Saddam in place you knew where your terrorist where coming from and where they WERENT going to be. Basically, Iraq was a big farking 'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' as far as al qaeda flavored nuttiness went. Iran didnt have as strong a hand because in the back of their mind, Iraq could STILL be a threat.

Then we knock Mr Mustache off his throne, opened up the country for every religious nutter with an AK and now the whole country is a free flow zone for jihadist and weaponry.

Syria is a country currently involved in a civil war that has potential for spilling over borders. If Iraq war 2 hadnt happened Syria wouldnt be happening but hey, hindsight and all. So we either help 'support' (by not getting involved) another secular strongman who represents stability (if even it is noxious stability) or help the jihadis who hate him topple him so that the warming embrace of militant Islamism can spread ever farther.

Basically its a question of, whats better in the long run. In the long run, keeping Iraq as a nutball buffer zone was ideal. we hooched that one though. So whats the ideal scenario for Syria? keeping a country in perpetual war so that no single bloc takes over and exerts influence (Iran). Or picking the side of the people who represent the ideas of goons we've been at war with for over a decade because Al-assad is an asshole?

If Assad wins, there will be massive death and destruction. Iran's primary national ally in the region will remain intact, and will be more likely than before to screw around with its neighbors. The US and Europe will look foolish, indecisive, and weak.

If the rebels win, there will be massive death and destruction as the fanatics wipe out every Alawite, Christian, and Shi'ite they can find (which may turn into yet another civil war). Al-Qaeda will likely gain a new regional stronghold, and even if they don't, it will likely be a place that Saudi Arabia grooms into being another backwards theocracy. The help offered by the West will soon be forgotten as fanatics take control.

NutWrench:Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.

The point is that they are diligent in NOT TAKING SIDES. Period. It's not about the ease with which they could provide evidence of one side, or the likelihood that anyone would disagree with the side they took. It's that they are allowed in because no matter what, they don't pick sides - they help the needy. That universal neutrality and the REPUTATION of universal neutrality is the primary advantage that they have.

SpectroBoy:AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: No. It's not brilliant. He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year. And no. Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act. His ego will allow nothing less. Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it? You mark my words. Even without approval he's gonna do something. I mean? What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances? Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim. Now THAT would be brilliant. :-)

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x682]

Typical of a farker who can't formulate a thought. The fallback is always to post an ad-hom attack in the form of a cartoon in the hope that you'll look cool. And you will ... To the rest of the retards. Well done. Now. Did you have anything intelligent to add, Spectro-Boy? Sorry. Rhetorical question.

Originally I thought we had a chance, 2 years ago, to help out some good guys getting their shiat pushed in by brutal regime thugs. But now, those good guys are mostly dead or fled, and it's a lot of bad guy vs bad guy at this point. So, I'll just repost this:

/"surgical" strikes might still be an option IF Assad (or semi-rogue parts of his forces) did the attack

Remind me again why we are not treating elimination of all petroleum use like the top priority national defense item it actually is. If nobody used petroleum, these subhuman savages would run out of money to fund their little monkey-fights.

NutWrench:squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.

That's also why the UN Weapons inspectors came in, looked around, took samples, and left...

While chemical weapons are terrible and their use absolutely has to be punished to keep it from seeming acceptable, why exactly haven't we been public with our evidence of the chemical attack?

I would that that it would make people a lot more supportive of a war that we might get involved in, and possibly shame other nations into joining the cause. I could see why they'd be hesitant without seeing evidence given our recent history in the area.

CheatCommando:Russia ain't going to war to defend Assad. They'll hamstring the Security Council and take other diplomatic measures, but the risk of actual military intervention is zero.

I think you are wrong. The chances of Russia intervening militarily in Syria are well above zero. After all, it's not like there hasn't been some precedent in the last 5 years of Russia sending military in to "aid" another country. Now of course, they will be extremely reluctant to engage ANY western military, but if the US is "entitled" to send military into a country that poses no immediate threat to the US or its allies, and which is not itself an ally of the US, then Russia certainly does as well. Especially if we act in spite of a complete lack of international consensus.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next. But inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

mainstreet62:Abe Vigoda's Ghost: the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

Even if they did steal the chemical weapons, it just drives home the point that they shouldn't be there since they are being used to commit atrocities.

Strike the chemical weapons sites with Tomahawks and give aid to the refugees. Let everyone else put boots on the ground.

Blowing up chemical weapons with a missile is too much like dynamiting a whale to get it off your beach.

So... if we attack he'll start a war that has everyone in the region wiping out their neighbor, thus leaving nothing but a human free wasteland above a series of trillion dollar oil fields.This was the "threat"?Does he understand how threats work?

/Explain to me why we haven't fired the missiles yet?/Did the sequester cut the drone inventory or something?

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

I'm not a teabagger and hardly a pacifist. My point is that we have NO EVIDENCE as to who actually used these weapons. My previous question didn't get answered...are we to now bomb BOTH SIDES because we don't know who used the chemical weapons?

What's the end game for us? We take out Assad and then what? We let an Al Qaeda-friendly government take over?

If we bomb Syria, do they react by hitting Israel with chemical weapons? You might as well just light the whole farking region on fire on that point because World War III will start.

This is not going to be solved simply by dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria.

durbnpoisn:I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing. And yes, they should be removed from play. But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?! Why not the UN? Why not Israel, since they are right there? Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya). France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

So, remember, kids, it's OK because the US doesn't intervene *everywhere*, and thinking that it's bad that we do is stupid.

dumbobruni:Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?

I responded to your bout of ignorance yesterday about this. Again:

the US isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting in world affairs.

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya). France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

You're right, my bad. But that doesn't explain why you're so desperate for us to use military action here.

Billy Bathsalt:Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless. If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.

I like this idea. Let's take it further, and start sending busloads of overweight American tourists over to wander around the palace taking pictures with iphones.

Put a Starbucks next to a wal-mart (with another Starbucks inside the wal-mart), and schedule air drops of Entertainment Weekly. Syria would be ours in matter of weeks

Infernalist:Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

the_foo:snocone: Infernalist:Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.

...riiiiight... Obama just <i>decided</i> to portray chemical weapons as a Bad Thing <i>last week</i> in order to sell us on military action, because he's such a war-monger. That's definitely what happened. Both sides are bad, so Obama is just like Bush. Obama has just been itching for a war, and chemical weapons aren't actually a big deal.

Listen idiot, there are perfectly good reasons NOT to use chemical and biological agents.None of them confused with your petty "morality" you have been spoon fed by the political heros.You don't use them because they are not controllable and ALWAYS bite your ass. Not because they are not "nice".

Infernalist:It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Shadowe:I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

LasersHurt:Carth: LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.

None of that has anything to do with his point, or my issue with that point.

Then lets leave the 'international community' out of the issue. They don't seem too concerned.

Infernalist:snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this. Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof". Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack? "We told you not to gas you people, and you did. We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down. And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing. That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.

If you don't grasp it, I can't help you. Well, I could, but I don't really feel up to trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Here, have another hank of rope.Maybe 1,500 killed by CW.100,000 by hand to hand.But, what do numbers mean when we are talking outrage and ire?

LasersHurt:doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.

you have pee hands:bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it. Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday...."Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added[.]

Russia has presented evidence to the UN it says shows Syrian rebels attacked regime forces with sarin gas that was produced in "cottage industry" conditions.

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russian experts had been to the scene of the attack at Khan al-Assal near Aleppo and gathered firsthand evidence.

He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile was "not a standard one for chemical use".

He added that, according to information gathered by Russia, production of the projectiles started in February by the "Basha'ir al-Nasr' brigade", which is affiliated with the Free Syrian Army.

From May and July, respectively.

Thanks for your time, continue with your idiotic posturing and dick waving that will certainly not come back to bite your children's generation in the ass.

snocone:Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.Whatever will we do next?

... dude, there's two or three. Depends on whether you count Kuwait as "liberated all to hell" and whether or not you call Afghanistan "the Middle East". Iraq makes the list as the only definitive one.

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost:"Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this. Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof". Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack? "We told you not to gas you people, and you did. We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down. And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing. That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

Shadowe:I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Then he should prepare for negotiations with the rebels. Ultimately, he's the guy that holds the keys here.

LasersHurt:Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.

It's hard to say how much understanding they do have. On the one hand it's obvious that the full might of a modern superpower could swat them like a fly there are several reasons why they might not consider this a real threat.

1) Western nations are very squeamish about letting their soldiers do their jobs. They impose ROE and missions that hamstring their armed forces and cause unnecessary casualties on their own soldiers. We also tend to get upset about any of our soldiers who die in combat and are easily fatigued by this.

2) Recent history of mismanaged conflicts points to the fact the barely literate and poorly trained insurgents can inflict damage on a western military. Sure that damage is usually at the expense of many more insurgent lives but see point one about why it's worth it for their leaders. When they lose soldier they are 'martyrs' for the cause and everyone is happy. When a national guardsman with a wife and two kids gets killed we are demoralized.

3)It's possible that these leaders have sycophant military "advisers" who tell them that they can stand toe to toe with the west and they don't have enough outside experience to know that they are being lied to.

4)They really haven't seen the full capabilities of a fully modern military because none of the recent conflicts have warranted anything other than cold war era hardware.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost:"Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

It is telling that we don't get to see/hear the evidence. At least Colin Powell waved yellowcake around.